simplyanuj wrote:
Leni: Colm has made extensive claims that the consumption of red meat is a primary cause of colon cancer in the indigenous population of Juong. But Colm’s own data shows only a strong correlation between the consumption of red meat and the incidence of colon cancer in the country, and since any self-respecting scientist knows that correlation does not prove causation, Colm’s claims must be false.
Which of the following describes an error in Leni’s reasoning?
a)To fail to establish causation is not to succeed in disproving causation.
b)Colm’s data is not provided for the reader’s own analysis.
c)Since Colm has demonstrated correlation, his arguments must be accepted.
d)She fails to cite any other studies of the population of Juong.
e)She attacks Colm’s credibility rather than the basis of his arguments.
Thanks
AK
Please give Kudos if the question increased your understanding
Hi guys,
I understand why the answer (a) is right, but I have problems to eliminate the answer (e).
I have read the statement and reasoned the answer in the following form:
Colm has made extensive claims that there is a causal relation between red meat and color cancer.
Leni affirms that strong correlation is not causal relation and that
any self-respecting scientist knows it.
Therefore, Colm’s claims must be false.
Then
Since any good scientist must known the different between correlation and causal relation and Colm does not know, Colm is not a good scientist. If Colm is not a good scientist , then Colm’s claims must be false.
How can I avoid this mistake? Where am I screwing up everything?